GeForce GTX 1660 vs 780M
Aggregated performance score
1660 outperforms 780M by 207% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 417 | 171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 43 |
| Value for money | 1.32 | 25.03 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | N14E-GTX | Turing TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 May 2013 (10 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $219 |
| Current price | $1093 | $252 (1.2x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1660 has 1796% better value for money than GTX 780M.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 | 1408 |
| CUDA cores | 1536 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 797 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.0 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,448 gflops | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 780M and GeForce GTX 1660 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 192.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | + | no data |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | no data |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
1660 outperforms 780M by 207% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
1660 outperforms 780M by 207% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
1660 outperforms 780M by 166% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
1660 outperforms 780M by 172% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
1660 outperforms 780M by 168% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
1660 outperforms 780M by 125% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
1660 outperforms 780M by 357% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
1660 outperforms 780M by 372% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
1660 outperforms 780M by 531% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 66
−30.3%
| 86
+30.3%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−243%
| 48
+243%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−211%
| 28
+211%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−373%
|
71
+373%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−171%
|
55−60
+171%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−293%
|
59
+293%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−185%
|
90−95
+185%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
−331%
|
112
+331%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−287%
|
58
+287%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−300%
|
100
+300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−265%
|
95
+265%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−277%
|
132
+277%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
−340%
|
110
+340%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−310%
|
82
+310%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−329%
|
73
+329%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−343%
|
93
+343%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−359%
|
78
+359%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−171%
|
55−60
+171%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−180%
|
42
+180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−185%
|
90−95
+185%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
−227%
|
85
+227%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−213%
|
47
+213%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−268%
|
92
+268%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−242%
|
89
+242%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−251%
|
123
+251%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
−260%
|
90
+260%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−205%
|
61
+205%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−280%
|
57
+280%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−135%
|
40
+135%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−271%
|
78
+271%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
−191%
|
102
+191%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−288%
|
66
+288%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−171%
|
55−60
+171%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−147%
|
37
+147%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−185%
|
90−95
+185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−167%
|
40
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−244%
|
86
+244%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−215%
|
82
+215%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−180%
|
98
+180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
−235%
|
57
+235%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−70.6%
|
29
+70.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−307%
|
57
+307%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
−280%
|
57
+280%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−150%
|
40
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−313%
|
33
+313%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−257%
|
25
+257%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−269%
|
48
+269%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−267%
|
30−35
+267%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
−350%
|
27
+350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−313%
|
65−70
+313%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24
+380%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−269%
|
59
+269%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
−269%
|
59
+269%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−322%
|
76
+322%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−333%
|
35−40
+333%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−280%
|
19
+280%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−357%
|
32
+357%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−244%
|
31
+244%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−37.5%
|
11
+37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−567%
|
20
+567%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
−380%
|
24
+380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−400%
|
35
+400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−275%
|
15
+275%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−275%
|
30
+275%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−210%
|
31
+210%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−317%
|
50
+317%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−300%
|
12
+300%
|
This is how GTX 780M and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 30.3% faster than GTX 780M in 1080p
- GTX 1660 is 243% faster than GTX 780M in 1440p
- GTX 1660 is 211% faster than GTX 780M in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 900% faster than the GTX 780M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1660 surpassed GTX 780M in all 68 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 9.84 | 30.19 |
| Recency | 30 May 2013 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 120 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1660 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
